Ex Parte Goto et al - Page 18

              Appeal 2007-0693                                                                     
              Application 10/188,519                                                               

          1   Supreme Court has expressly rejected “obvious to try” as a “constricted              
          2   analysis.”  KSR, 127 S. Ct. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 (“[A] patent claim             
          3   cannot be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of                   
          4   elements was ‘obvious to try.’...When there is a design need or market               
          5   pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified,             
          6   predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue          
          7   the known options within his or her technical grasp.  If this leads to the           
          8   anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary      
          9   skill and common sense.”).                                                           
         10         Appellants urge that the data tabulated in Table 17 (Specification 37)         
         11   demonstrate that the claimed range of 70-95% ethylene-propylene content is           
         12   critical.  (Br. 14.)  Specifically, Appellants argue that the data show that the     
         13   discharge capacity at -20 degC (mAh)2 drops significantly when the                   
         14   ethylene propylene content of the binder is less than 70%.  They further             
         15   assert that when the ethylene-propylene content exceeds 95%, the electrode           
         16   strength3 drops to an unacceptable level.                                            
                                                                                                  
                    2   According to the present Specification, “low-temperature discharge         
              characteristic was assessed by discharging at a constant discharge current of        
              900 mA until a discharge termination voltage of 3.0 V is reached after a             
              constant-current constant-voltage charging at a charging current of 630 mA           
              at a charging voltage of 4.2 V for a charging time of 2 hours in a -20 degrees       
              C environment.”  (Specification 13:5-9.)                                             
                    3  According to the present Specification, “[s]trength of the negative         
              electrode was tested by applying 1.5 cm-square cellophane adhesive tape on           
              the surface of the negative electrode and measuring the force required to            
              peel off the negative electrode mix...”  (Specification 13: 9-11.)  No further       
              explanation is given on how the force is determined.  Rexnord Corp. v.               
              Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1343, 60 USPQ2d 1851, 1855 (Fed. Cir.                  
                                                18                                                 

Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013